About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 5, Torres 4, San Francisco 4, The City 2, Carter 2, Sandy 2, City 2, California 2, Ms. Hale 1, Mr. Brooks 1, Puc 1, Ronald Regan 1, Empirical Data 1, Olague 1, Puc Look 1, Davis 1, Fresno 1, Surcosity 1, San Franciscans 1, Nigeria 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 7, 2012
    11:30 - 12:00pm PST  

11:30am
even provides scenarios that hetch hetchy power could be used right from the beginning to mitigate the price increases, and moving ahead like this never happened. we're having discussions in the stakeholders meetings and other places and how to incorporate this new information. why in the world would you not do that? >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment on these items please come forward? and seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. i want to thank puc and ms. hale for your presentation. thank you very much and i really appreciate the work that has been put together in developing the framework for outreach. i actually really believe that we need to move forward quickly as a city. i want to make sure we're successful in the program. while we don't have all the
11:31am
details of the early notification and education plan there, the framework is clear and i think it's a good starting point to move forward for the city and i believe that while we have had comments about talking about caution i think they're well meaning how to have a successful program but i think the success of the program is that we roll out quickly with the notification and the education plan. that's going to be most meaningful. i also want to make sure that we're really clear that the effort is really working in the deep green areas first and foremost where we know a particular target audience is for the message and we know how to craft that message for them as well. i think that is going to be significant. we're not reaching out to every population in san francisco from the get go but the deep green area is where we need to focus the efforts on. this plan incorporates that and i believe it's the right way to go. i would like to move
11:32am
forward approving something today that can later be implemented early next year and hopefully we can move that in that direction. commissioner olague. >> yeah. i just wanted to comment that i agree with mr. brooks that the onslaught of opposition that this campaign probably has to deal with will be very severe and i think certainly -- there is the ledgeally ballot in the bay and prop eight and there were ballots in the bay never counted and all of that and who knows? it could be true obviously. there is a website "change.org" and misinformed about shell oil and it's connection to this program and maybe it's not completely misinformed but certainly under lying there is no mention of clean power and
11:33am
how we have no currently and relying completely i will say hard energy sources and fossil fuels and that sort of thing, and even in my own personal campaign there was a hit piece that came out about how i was in bed with shell oil and nigeria and active vifts there and we know that is true and disappearing and what not and i don't think we should under estimate the type of political quagmire that this program will find itself in and the attacks are unwarranted and misinforming and certainly i'm not suggesting they're all coming from pg&e, but certainly there is a motivation to maintain the monopoly they have held in the city around providing energy, so with that being said i just wanted to close my comments and
11:34am
i am glad next week i think we're at lafco hearing the task force recommendations. that is critical and sometimes we pass the policies and our actions never conform with the policies that we pass, so if we're serious about reaching that goal in 10 years i think we really need to get serious and that's why cleanpower sf is so important, but in closing i want to go back again and harp on my jimmy carter issue of earlier and i'm going to take this quote. it says "soon after jimmy carter installed solar panels on the white house. a generation from now i think this is in the 70's or early 80's the solar heater can be a surcosity, a museum piece, a example of a road not taken, or a small part of one of the greatest adventures under taken by the
11:35am
american people and harness the power of the sun and move away from the crippling dependence on foreign oil, and again at that point we can say that the solar panels were a museum piece. i am hoping cleanpower sf isn't this interesting idea that creeped up and disappeared because of all the misinformation and whatever that certain interests will probably have in seeing this sort of plan not succeed, so again when i was 16 my first venture into politics was through this group called "people for safe energy" in fresno and i was 17 and our first venture was to go to the power plant and protest the fact they wanted to have a nuclear power plant sitting next to an earthquake fault. in japan i think the conversation around nuclear power is shifting
11:36am
again and there are challenges to it and this is not new. this conversation has been around forever and that is pg&e and nuclear power and all of that and here we are in 2012 still having the conversation, so i mean i wouldn't under estimate again the type of opposition, however subtle or not, that this program is going to have to conwith. that's why it's critical how we accurately inform people in the city around the value of this program. >> thank you commissioner olague. president carter also wore a button down sweater when he made that statement. >> did he? >> it's important to note that ronald regan removed those solar panels from the white house. i am unclear on the agenda and on ours it doesn't mention any possible action item, but on
11:37am
the document for the public utilities commission it does and i think we want to make sure we're either today or the next puc meeting but i hope that's the plan, the framework of the plan can be adopted. >> i would like to make a comment. >> commissioner torres. >> first of all i never believed the hit pieces against you commissioner olague. >> thank you. >> and the man that defeated carter thought redwood trees caused pollutions and number three i don't think the staff is naive and to suggest that is inappropriate. they have been working very hard in this effort -- >> i -- >> i'm not talking about you. i am talking general in response. i believe the process is organic and i believe they do take into consideration every input as possible and this process and i know the chair and the other members of the commission know is not over yet. it is still evolving and that is an
11:38am
important element to put out there. this process is still evolving and organ and i can need continued input to whatever surveys and approaches we take are reflective of those issues and the other issue raised is san franciscans should be doing outreach in this support and i can't support that more than enough because it's always my experience that sometimes we bring in outside forces -- not that we have here, but outside forces that don't know the community, communities of color and speak other languages and in addition to english and those are sensitive issues i think the staff has taken into consideration and that's an important statement to make. i appreciate your comments and i read your letter and i appreciate the comments but i think it's important to keep within the context of how the
11:39am
staff and commission has operated and quite frankly how members of the board of supervisors has operated with the best of intentions because at the end of the day we're accountable to the tax payers and the rate payers of city and county of san francisco. >> thank you president torres. just a clarification on the action item before us if there is one or for the later meet something. >> the sfpuc commission agenda provides for them to discuss and take action, so our understanding is that the commission secretary would call the roll for the sfpuc so that they could vote on this agenda item for lafco it was just a discussion item. >> thank you. commissioner vietor. >> yes and i appreciate all the public comments that have been made and the comments too from
11:40am
this body and all of the work that the puc has done. i have been on the public utilities commission for four years plus and i know this cleanpower sf issue -- i think it's been eight years, nine years in the coming, and when i came on there was really this sort of sense that the puc wasn't stepping up, that the city didn't care that we weren't moving quickly enough and he we are at this opportunity to really move things forward. i think it's really remarkable and i think we all now recognize with hurricane sandy, with the inclement weather and the winter we're having now that climate change and renewable power and local energy provision is paramount and we need to main ain and amplify that commitment as a city. i also continue to have my eye on the prize of the local build out and the promise of
11:41am
that because i think not only is the job opportunity great, and all kinds of implications around work force training and at the local level and diversify that source and needs to be local and hurricane sandy has shown us that. that if there were nor localized power 4,000 people wouldn't be out of power right now so i am supportive of moving forward as quickly as possible with the education and outreach that needs to happen. i also concur with president torres and this is organic and evolving and this financing piece is really an important discussion to have and i would welcome having that with the lafco to talk about if the possibility of local build out over this four year contract could reduce the rates
11:42am
and the question of the bond and $4 million bond and i would love for the cfo at the puc look at that and give a briefing on that, so i am wondering in short order we're . -- we couldn't have this presentation and understanding we're going door to door and putting numbers out there into the community but i think that needs to happen. this program needs to move forward. it's been a long time. not just with this program, but as we heard from the installation of the first solar power in the 70's it's time to take action and move forward so thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner mo ran. >> thank you, just a couple quick comments. first is that when the item comes before the
11:43am
commission at our next meeting in order to lift the funding cap i think that is an appropriate time for staff or davis and associates to respond to some of the issues raised today and specific outreach to communities of color. secondly, i do understand that the local power has submitted at least a first major draft of their proposal that that's being reviewed by puc staff. i have seen some of the initial work, both the submission and the staff response on that. i think that's important that it proceed and proceed quickly. i am in favor of moving forward with this program as proposed in part to keep the pressure on that activity and not shelfd and ignored and that it's addressed and responded to completely, so when we have a presentation it
11:44am
be one frankly not just by local power but also by local power and staff. hopefully having come to some agreement as to what those numbers are and what they mean for us that we can have a complete discussion about that, so i think it is organic and moving and we need to keep the pressure on moving it quickly. >> okay. thank you. colleagues any other comments or questions? okay. i think so the puc commissioners do have an action item and i will hand over the gavel to the president of the commission to carry out their decision. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you mr. president. i would like to move the resolution of this in front of us. >> is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded. any opposition? any discussion? any public comment? called
11:45am
roll. >> president torres. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. commissioner. >> aye. >> motion carries. i think we're adjourned. >> okay. very good. thank you very much. i am very excited to see that go forward. thank you commissioners. let's go to our next item. >> item number six public comment. >> this is a chance to comment on any item not on the agenda, any item before us. >> the lafco committee that has been established all over california have an very important role to play, and there is a channel 108 that shows the deliberations of the lafco and what happens in
11:46am
sacramento. here in san francisco we just take it for granted when we get our hydro electricity and when we get our hetch hetchy water delivered to our taps, and i think it's high time because how the rich folks at one time went to congress and dammed hetch hetchy to get the water here that we pay attention to the poor folks, the farmers who today most of them have to drink contaminated water and if they have money they have to drink bottled water. this is in california. now, we in san francisco we just take things for granted, so when we talk about clean energy, when we
11:47am
talk about water, when we talk about anything where the taxpayer pays money let's not take things for granted without having empirical data we have this habit that we can just spend the tax payers money. i know farmers in the mid-west who are paid not to till the land while half the land they grow corn which when the final product comes out costs $74 a gallon. tank clean energy. so we need to go deeper into it. it's not to say that the deliberation here favors that we do the right thing. we really need to do the right
11:48am
hing with empirical data, not with fluff, and as one who is a philosopher and i go really deep into things and read stuff i will not tolerate fluff. i will expose it. i will shine light where there is darkness. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public would like to comment? seeing none. we will close public comment. and madam clerk do we have any other items before us? >> no mr. chr app
11:49am
11:50am
11:51am
11:52am
11:53am
11:54am
11:55am
11:56am
11:57am
11:58am
11:59am

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)